Trial reportClinical oral investigations2020
Bupivacaine vs. lidocaine: a comparison of local anesthetic efficacy in impacted third molar surgery.
Trial report in Clinical oral investigations, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Trial
- Immediate postoperative anesthesia with either lidocaine or bupivacaine: A short-term clinical response.Journal of periodontology · 2025Trial
- The efficacy of non-depolarizing muscle relaxant as adjuvants to local anesthesia in peribulbar block during cataract surgery.Scientific reports · 2025Trial
- Comparison of efficacy and pain perception using 0.5% Bupivacaine and 2% Lidocaine in periodontal Surgery - A split mouth randomized clinical trial.European oral research · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe aim of this study was to compare the anesthetic efficacy, the duration of anesthesia, and the postoperative analgesia of lidocaine and bupivacaine and to determine any difference in hemodynamic parameters in patients who required impacted third molar removal. MATERIALS AND
methodsThirty-eight patients between the ages of 18 and 40, with no systemic disease, were included in the study, with an indication of impacted lower third molar extraction. One of two local anesthetic agents (Marcaine and Jetokain Simplex) was randomly selected for tooth extractions. The parameters evaluated were the onset of anesthetic agent action, the duration of operation, the duration of postoperative analgesia, and postoperative visual analog scale scores. Hemodynamic parameters were observed and evaluated preoperatively and during the operation. All data were evaluated statistically.
resultsWhen the time of anesthesia onset was analyzed according to both anesthetic solutions, the difference was in favor of lidocaine (p = 0.01). The duration of action was longer in the bupivacaine group than in the lidocaine group (p = 0.00002). VAS values for the pain obtained during injection were lower in the lidocaine group (p = 0.009).However, according to the results of our study, the postoperative analgesic efficacy of bupivacaine is similar to that of lidocaine (p = 0.087).
conclusionAfter evaluation of these results, we can recommend the use of lidocaine and bupivacaine safely in dentistry practice. But long-duration effect of bupivacaine and the rapid effect of lidocaine may make lidocaine more preferable. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: It is important to determine the clinically effective and safe anesthetic solution.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.